In The Interest of J.B., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1815
Filed June 10, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of J.B., Minor Child,
S.B., Mother,
Petitioner-Appellee,

S.B., Father,
Respondent-Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County,
The Honorable Patrick McAvan, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Derek E. Johnson, Iowa City, attorney for appellant father.

Eric Schmitt and Katie E. M. Lujan of Washington Law Office LLP,
Washington, attorneys for appellee mother.

Misty White Willis of M. White Law Office, PLLC, Sigourney, guardian ad
litem and attorney for minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A father appeals an order terminating his parental rights to a child
under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2023). He challenges the evidence showing
the grounds for termination. He also contests the finding that termination
serves the child’s best interest. Because the mother has proved the grounds
for terminating the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code
section 600A.8(9) and termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The mother and father began dating in 2013. The mother gave birth
to the child in 2015 while the father was in prison. The father moved in with
the mother and child when he was released five months later. But the
parents’ relationship, which the district court described as “unhealthy and
violent,” 1 began deteriorating. Their relationship ended with a “messy”
breakup in May 2017.

After the breakup, the mother began a new relationship and married.
The mother’s husband has acted as a father to the child by caring for the
child, being involved with the child’s schooling and extracurricular activities,
and supporting the child emotionally and financially. The child calls the
mother’s husband “dad.”

The father has not seen the child since late 2017. The father claims
the mother prevented him from seeing the child, while the mother claims the
father only showed interest in the child during holidays and birthdays. When
the mother sent the father photos of the child, she received no response. The

1
The mother and one of her witnesses claim the father was physically abusive to
the mother, which the father and his mother denied. Two witnesses described the
parents’ relationship as “toxic.”

2
father explained that he believed the mother was taunting him by sending
photos without letting him see the child. When the father responded, it
usually resulted in an argument. The father also told the mother to stop
messaging him and leave him alone. Although the mother reminded the
father that he could obtain an order for custody and visitation to enforce his
parental rights, the father never did so.

The father was convicted of third-degree kidnapping and domestic
abuse assault by strangulation causing bodily injury in 2025. He is serving a
fifteen-year prison sentence with a tentative discharge date in November
2031. The father testified that he is appealing the convictions and that his
counselor believes he may be released on parole as early as 2026. Although
he could have visits or video calls with the child while in prison, he wants to
wait until his appeal is resolved before deciding future visits.

The mother petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights under
Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) and (9). After a hearing, the district court
found the mother had proved both grounds for termination. Finding that
termination would be in the child’s best interest, the court granted the
petition.

SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review private termination proceedings de novo. See In re B.H.A.,
938 N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2020). “Although we are not bound by them, we
give weight to the trial court’s findings of fact, especially when considering
credibility of witnesses.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
Termination proceedings under chapter 600A involve a two-step
process. See In re Q.G., 911 N.W.2d 761, 770 (Iowa 2018). First, the parent

3
petitioning to terminate parental rights must prove the statutory ground for
termination by clear and convincing evidence. Id. If that burden is met, the
court then considers the child’s best interest. Id. The father contests the
evidence satisfying both steps, which we address in turn.

I. Did the mother prove one of the grounds for termination?

The district court found the mother proved two grounds for
termination under Iowa Code section 600A.8. “[W]e may affirm so long as
one ground is supported by sufficient evidence.” In re L.K., No. 25-0935,
2026 WL 892718, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026). We focus on
section 600A.8(9).

Section 600A.8(9) allows the court to terminate parental rights if clear
and convincing evidence shows that “the parent has been imprisoned and it
is unlikely that the parent will be released from prison for a period of five or
more years.” The father concedes that he is serving an indeterminate fifteen-
year prison sentence but notes that he has appealed his convictions,
suggesting that they will be reversed. He also argues that there is “a very real
possibility” that he could be released early on parole.

We agree that the mother has proved the grounds for terminating the
father’s parental rights under section 600A.8(9). The father’s tentative
release date was more than five years from the date the court entered the
termination order. We rely on the tentative release date rather than
speculation about whether the father will be paroled early or succeed in
appealing his convictions. See In re M.J.P., No. 15-1279, 2016 WL 4396108,
at *1–2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2016) (approving of the district court’s
refusal to speculate on when a father will be successful in a bid to be paroled
early when the tentative discharge date was more than five years in the
future); In re S.W., No. 22-1503, 2023 WL 153517, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.

4
Jan. 11, 2023) (affirming termination under section 600A.8(9) based on the
father’s twenty-six-year prison sentence and declining to speculate on
whether father would successfully appeal).

II. Does termination serve the child’s best interest?

Having found that the mother proved one of the statutory grounds for
termination, we next consider whether termination serves the child’s best
interest. See Iowa Code § 600A.1(1) (stating that the child’s best interest is
“the paramount consideration” in interpreting chapter 600A). It is in the
child’s best interest for each parent to “affirmatively assume the duties
encompassed by the role of being a parent.” Id. § 600A.1(2). When
determining whether a parent has met this responsibility, we consider a
parent’s “fulfillment of financial obligations, demonstration of continued
interest in the child, demonstration of a genuine effort to maintain
communication with the child, and demonstration of the establishment and
maintenance of a place of importance in the child’s life.” Id.

The record shows the father has not affirmatively assumed his parental
duties. Since 2017, the father has not seen the child or provided financial
support. His inquiries about the child were few and far between, and the
father could not recall when he last asked the mother how the child was
doing. The mother asked the father for his address multiple times, but the
father never provided it to her. Although the father blames the mother for
impeding his relationship with the child, he took no action to secure his rights
with a court order despite the mother repeatedly telling him to do so. This is
clear when contrasted with the father’s relationship with a daughter who the
father visits often and provides financial support.

Termination serves the child’s best interests. The child does not recall
seeing the father and considers the mother’s husband to be his “dad.” The

5
mother’s husband is active in the child’s life and the child made his desire to
be adopted by the husband clear to the guardian ad litem. As the guardian ad
litem noted in her report to the court, the father says he wants to maintain his
parental rights but
has taken no actions to fulfill his obligations or exercise his rights as a father.
It is one thing to say you want to be a father, and another, making that
happen. [The father] has had five years to assert his rights and take
responsibility. In that period another man has taken on that role, and this
is the person . . . that [the child] calls dad. [The child] desires his stepdad
to adopt him.

Because the mother has proved the grounds for termination and termination
is in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

6